The jury system is a joke

[JinX11]

[ QUOTE ]

Here's the thing, though: YOU are the reason that there is virtue in the jury system. Juries are not decided by a majority decision...they must be unanimous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here the thing, though: YOU watch too much Law & Order: SVU and are making terribly inaccurate statements.

[Los Feliz Slim]

Without more details about the case, it would be impossible to judge who's right in this specific situation. The simple fact that they weren't all agreeing with you isn't enough to sway my opinion on their, or your, intelligence. The jury, so to speak, is still out on that subject.

[stabn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Here's the thing, though: YOU are the reason that there is virtue in the jury system. Juries are not decided by a majority decision...they must be unanimous


[/ QUOTE ]

Please leave the thread. You do not know what you are talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the same amount of words, you could have just told him what his mistake was. I'd be interested too. Is it majority for civil trials or something? I don't know. I guess I will leave the thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Below is a quote that outlines some criminal/civial trial differences. Asking questions about what is required is a lot different than stating things as fact.

[ QUOTE ]

2. Burdens of Proof
In order to win a case in court, the party making the charge of wrongdoing must meet a burden of proof. The weight of the burden depends on the type of trial -- civil or criminal -- and sometimes on the specific charge. In criminal trials, the burden of proof is reasonable doubt, which means that a normal person should not have any serious doubt about the truth of the charges. Reasonable doubt is sometimes characterized as 95% certainty about the verdict. In civil trials, the burden of proof is usually the much weaker preponderance of the evidence, meaning that a normal person weighing all of the relevant evidence would consider the charges more likely true than not. Preponderance of the evidence is sometimes characterized as 51% certainty. Finally, in a small handful of cases (such as patent infringement and termination of parental rights) an intermediate burden called clear and convincing evidence is used. Clear and convincing evidence is sometimes characterized as 75% certainty.
The different burdens of proof are loosely reflected in the number of jurors required to reach a verdict. In the federal system and in almost every State, unanimity is required in criminal trials. In civil trials, unanimity is sometimes but not generally required; the exact number of jurors needed to render a verdict differs among jurisdictions. (The number of members on a jury also differs substantially among jurisdictions. In criminal trials, 12 is the usual number, but it is sometimes lower. In civil trials, smaller juries are more common. Juries almost always have at least 6 members.)


[/ QUOTE ]

I've bolded a couple of items that apply to this thread.

[coffeecrazy1]

I stand corrected, then. Leaving thread now.

[rusellmj]

[ QUOTE ]

The other 8 were adamant that the defendant (a very big company) be severly punished. They wanted to give the plaintiff (a family with an injured child) about 50% more compensatory damages than they asked for and double the punitive damages.
I tried to talk about evidence and all they could say was, "What if it were your child? You wouldn't think 100 million is too much if it was your child!"

[/ QUOTE ]

This is referred to as deep pocket syndrome. My company deals with it on a regular basis.
People look at a big company and a "defensless" plaintiff and say "they can afford it, who cares."

[Rockatansky]

I'll give $20 to the first person who can post a link to an empirical study that demonstrates that the tort system systematically overcompensates plaintiffs.

[Rockatansky]

Just to get things started, here is a link to a page that discusses a RAND study. The study found that, while plaintiffs with minor injuries are often slightly overcompensated, plaintiffs with economic losses in excess of $100,000 are compensated at a rate of about 9%.

Of course, these findings pale in comparison to the hand-waving, anecdotal arguments put forth by the "jury system is out of control" crowd.

Link

[stabn]

[ QUOTE ]
Just to get things started, here is a link to a page that discusses a RAND study. The study found that, while plaintiffs with minor injuries are often slightly overcompensated, plaintiffs with economic losses in excess of $100,000 are compensated at a rate of about 9%.

Of course, these findings pale in comparison to the hand-waving, anecdotal arguments put forth by the "jury system is out of control" crowd.

[/ QUOTE ]

You forgot your link.

[Rockatansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just to get things started, here is a link to a page that discusses a RAND study. The study found that, while plaintiffs with minor injuries are often slightly overcompensated, plaintiffs with economic losses in excess of $100,000 are compensated at a rate of about 9%.

Of course, these findings pale in comparison to the hand-waving, anecdotal arguments put forth by the "jury system is out of control" crowd.

[/ QUOTE ]

You forgot your link.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I tend to get a little worked up over this, obviously.

[stabn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just to get things started, here is a link to a page that discusses a RAND study. The study found that, while plaintiffs with minor injuries are often slightly overcompensated, plaintiffs with economic losses in excess of $100,000 are compensated at a rate of about 9%.

Of course, these findings pale in comparison to the hand-waving, anecdotal arguments put forth by the "jury system is out of control" crowd.

[/ QUOTE ]

You forgot your link.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I tend to get a little worked up over this, obviously.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes i can tell.